We're making arguments based off feelings now, breh?its how i feelthe size, immigration are obstacles
maybe im wrong
Can anyone explain to me why single payer health care is bad for America?
- Thread starter Maschine_Man
- Start date
Canada has the population of California in a country bigger than the US. Population density is a weak excuse.
Trajan
Veteran
But you already spend more than everyone else and get inferior results. You have a bigger population but you're also the richest country on earth by far. The US GDP per capita is up there and countries with less income are running better systems.
Even The Economist, the paragons of free-markets conceded this.
One way capitalism can make health care worse and more expensive
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/health-reform
America’s big spending on health care doesn’t pay off
http://www.economist.com/news/21678669-americas-big-spending-health-care-doesnt-pay
I remember reading a report that it would be much cheaper for Americans to run a universal healthcare system than the current insurance system designed to maximise profit.
IMO, America is a nation of individuals. The country is made up of numerous different ethnic groups with not much loyalty to fellow ''citizens'' and no matter how economically sound the reason is, they would reject it outright because it's every man for himself.
It's not about the numbers but the principle of some non-taxpayers being covered. That offends American sensibilities lol.
David_TheMan
Banned
You may not agree but here is my argument categorized under the two main perspectives of why I'm against it.
1) Violation of individual liberty. Users being forced to subsidized healthcare system from their earnings is no more than theft to me, its theft of goods with the threat of force and I'm against that. So just off the principle of government forcing subsidization of health services I'm against it as a bad idea.
2) Less effective than free market solution and more expensive. I can go on a longer breakdown if you want, but I'll be short here. removing profit/loss feedback mechanism for any good or service provided on a market (whatever good or service it is) will lead to market inefficiency in providing said good or service. There will typically be shortages of goods in areas of need and surplus in areas that aren't needed. You will have that service (healthcare in this instance) shaping its service not on the needs of those who use it or customers but on centralized bureaucrats disconnected from the process entirely, so you will get poorer service as a result. On top of that because care is subsidized you will get more people using it, this is going to lead to a massive strain on resources and cause increased wait times for use of service, and attempts to ration said service with panels used to discuss the economic disability of continuing care on certain customers, because costs will increase for service with more and more people using it, but providers largely staying the same number.
the cac mamba
Veteran
yea, this is definitely a republican thing"Liberals are all about their feelings and not facts!"
This gets explained over and over, yet they keep repeating the "fedrul goverment doesnt work at all" meme. He's even going to bring up the USPS operating loss thing again.
And again, as has been explained in the past, the USPS only started running a loss when Republicans forced them to fund retirements for future employees that don't even exist yet, deliberately capsizing their budget so they can say "See? Privatize it."
edit: and what do you mean about the feeling part, dikkhead
there is no fact based model you can base running single payer off. its only theories 
the cac mamba
Veteran
where is your fact based argument where a country the size of the US has run this successfully?
change 'feel' to theorize, jesus
you fukkin happyand dont act like i wasnt in here touting bernie sanders all primary season either. im ALL FOR giving it a shot
I'll base everything off the Canadian Health Care system cuz it's effective, and easiest to compare to(as neighbours)
Single Payer Health Care System
According to a Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Americans are the least satisfied with their health care.
An economic overview of America's system is: 42 million people are not covered, the various health care plans place rigid limitations on which doctors and hospitals people can use, cost-saving measures are forcing patients out of hospital beds prematurely, administrative costs are approaching 25% of the health care dollar, managed care is generally structured such that physicians have incentives to cut costs and gain revenue by withholding care, and many Americans live in fear of losing whatever care they have.
Our current system is based on the power of the insurance industry to stifle any challenges from alternatives. They advocate a competitive environment where they set the rules. These rules give us health care at a very high cost with unusually high profits going to the health care industry and massive salaries going to the associated executives.
In contrast, the single payer system that Canada has used for the last 25 years has drastically simplified their administration costs. For instance, it takes more people to administer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts that it does to administer the entire health care system of Canada. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead.
The Canadian system is a publicly funded insurance program where costs are controlled and both hospitals and doctors are private. Any Canadian can go to any doctor or hospital in the country. Each province has its own system and its own unique way of funding it. In spite of this decentralized approach, there are agreements among all provinces that provide for treatment of any Canadian citizen regardless of where the need occurs. The great success of their system causes almost all Canadian politicians, even conservatives, to defend it vociferously. It is called single payer because there is only one "payer"; there is no alternative program, such as private health insurance, to which Canadians can turn for basic health care. Since the wealthy as well as the middle income people have no alternative, they make sure it is funded adequately. This together with cost controls insures that everyone including the poor, who use the same system, receives the same high quality care.
Canada has a much higher percentage of general practitioners and fewer specialists. Canadian doctors make about one third less that American doctors and yet their satisfaction level is high because they have more time to practice medicine because paper work is minimized. Since there is a "single payer", it is easier to set up and adhere to budgetary limits. Effective planning eliminates duplication of facilities and expensive technology. In the U.S., competition has led to great redundancies in expensive equipment such as for CAT scans; doctor groups buy high technology equipment and then compete for selling these services.
The economic advantages of the Canadian system are multi-faceted. Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans. Preventive care to an entire population minimizes expensive care associated with undetected, untreated health problems. There is very little litigation because there is no need for awards to cover future health care costs; they are already covered. Further savings occur because there is no longer a need for a health insurance component of automobile or home insurance.
There is less loss of productive labor due to absence and sickness and health care is much more practical and less expensive for companies to provide to employees. Estimates show that Canadians produce American cars for $700 less than Americans do because of the difference in the costs of providing health care to employees. The benefits to competitiveness are obvious.
Both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office estimated that if we were to implement a health care system similar to the Canadian one, we could extend coverage to all Americans while saving billions of dollars annually. During the health care debate in 1993, there were 89 cosponsors of the single payer system. And yet, it was not given serious consideration. One reason for this is the well-funded health insurance power structure with its effective lobbying forces in Congress.
This single payer ballot issue will appear in various states in the upcoming years. It is anticipated that, just as with the 1994 California single payer ballot issue, the health industry will spend enormous amounts to defeat them. It is also anticipated that the issue will receive very little press coverage just as happened in California.
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) reported after studying the 1994 California ballot issue that there were no articles in the media during the entire pre-election period that pointed out that other countries have single payer systems or what their experience has been. Americans might be interested to know that Canadians live longer, have lower maternal mortality rates, and lower infant mortality. Before single payer was implemented in Canada, infant mortality was similar to that in the U.S.; today there are 9.1 deaths in the first year of life per 1000 births in the U.S. and 6.8 in Canada. In addition, they have more hospital admissions, more hospital days, more physician visits, more immunizations, and more surgical procedures per person than we have in the U.S.
Ongoing misinformation perpetuates myths about long wait times for care, availability of high-tech care, and the amount and quality of medical research done. There are very small differences between the U.S. and Canada in these three areas. The large differences between the U.S. and Canada are in the tens of millions of people with no coverage or inadequate coverage in the U.S. The differences are also in peoples' losing everything they have and becoming destitute to cover medical expenses in the U.S. They're in the lack of preventive care in the U.S. which results in expensive treatment of illnesses in their later stages.
Economic considerations are very important as are issues such as the general state of a country's health, the anxiety over health care and the level of satisfaction experienced by those in the health care industry. The economics certainly indicate that the Canadian approach should be observed and considered as a model for the U.S. The U.S. spends about $1000 per year per person more than does Canada. We have nothing to lose by giving it an objective analysis, seeking out both sides of the argument. It's worth a look.
Quoting a letter to the editor from Ove Madsen in the Montana Senior Voice:
"I have read all about the health care plans in the paper. I have done a little work to find out what the general public Canadians think about their health plan. Everytime I see a car with Canadian license plates, I go up and talk to them. They are all nice to talk with, and I ask them how they like their health care plan. So far, 99% of the Canadians I've talked to like their system. They say it is such a peace of mind and the service at the doctor's office and hospitals is really quite good. If the ordinary run of the people like it, that's all we need to know."
According the Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Canadians are the most satisfied with their health care.
Single Payer Health Care System
According to a Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Americans are the least satisfied with their health care.
An economic overview of America's system is: 42 million people are not covered, the various health care plans place rigid limitations on which doctors and hospitals people can use, cost-saving measures are forcing patients out of hospital beds prematurely, administrative costs are approaching 25% of the health care dollar, managed care is generally structured such that physicians have incentives to cut costs and gain revenue by withholding care, and many Americans live in fear of losing whatever care they have.
Our current system is based on the power of the insurance industry to stifle any challenges from alternatives. They advocate a competitive environment where they set the rules. These rules give us health care at a very high cost with unusually high profits going to the health care industry and massive salaries going to the associated executives.
In contrast, the single payer system that Canada has used for the last 25 years has drastically simplified their administration costs. For instance, it takes more people to administer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts that it does to administer the entire health care system of Canada. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead.
The Canadian system is a publicly funded insurance program where costs are controlled and both hospitals and doctors are private. Any Canadian can go to any doctor or hospital in the country. Each province has its own system and its own unique way of funding it. In spite of this decentralized approach, there are agreements among all provinces that provide for treatment of any Canadian citizen regardless of where the need occurs. The great success of their system causes almost all Canadian politicians, even conservatives, to defend it vociferously. It is called single payer because there is only one "payer"; there is no alternative program, such as private health insurance, to which Canadians can turn for basic health care. Since the wealthy as well as the middle income people have no alternative, they make sure it is funded adequately. This together with cost controls insures that everyone including the poor, who use the same system, receives the same high quality care.
Canada has a much higher percentage of general practitioners and fewer specialists. Canadian doctors make about one third less that American doctors and yet their satisfaction level is high because they have more time to practice medicine because paper work is minimized. Since there is a "single payer", it is easier to set up and adhere to budgetary limits. Effective planning eliminates duplication of facilities and expensive technology. In the U.S., competition has led to great redundancies in expensive equipment such as for CAT scans; doctor groups buy high technology equipment and then compete for selling these services.
The economic advantages of the Canadian system are multi-faceted. Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans. Preventive care to an entire population minimizes expensive care associated with undetected, untreated health problems. There is very little litigation because there is no need for awards to cover future health care costs; they are already covered. Further savings occur because there is no longer a need for a health insurance component of automobile or home insurance.
There is less loss of productive labor due to absence and sickness and health care is much more practical and less expensive for companies to provide to employees. Estimates show that Canadians produce American cars for $700 less than Americans do because of the difference in the costs of providing health care to employees. The benefits to competitiveness are obvious.
Both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office estimated that if we were to implement a health care system similar to the Canadian one, we could extend coverage to all Americans while saving billions of dollars annually. During the health care debate in 1993, there were 89 cosponsors of the single payer system. And yet, it was not given serious consideration. One reason for this is the well-funded health insurance power structure with its effective lobbying forces in Congress.
This single payer ballot issue will appear in various states in the upcoming years. It is anticipated that, just as with the 1994 California single payer ballot issue, the health industry will spend enormous amounts to defeat them. It is also anticipated that the issue will receive very little press coverage just as happened in California.
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) reported after studying the 1994 California ballot issue that there were no articles in the media during the entire pre-election period that pointed out that other countries have single payer systems or what their experience has been. Americans might be interested to know that Canadians live longer, have lower maternal mortality rates, and lower infant mortality. Before single payer was implemented in Canada, infant mortality was similar to that in the U.S.; today there are 9.1 deaths in the first year of life per 1000 births in the U.S. and 6.8 in Canada. In addition, they have more hospital admissions, more hospital days, more physician visits, more immunizations, and more surgical procedures per person than we have in the U.S.
Ongoing misinformation perpetuates myths about long wait times for care, availability of high-tech care, and the amount and quality of medical research done. There are very small differences between the U.S. and Canada in these three areas. The large differences between the U.S. and Canada are in the tens of millions of people with no coverage or inadequate coverage in the U.S. The differences are also in peoples' losing everything they have and becoming destitute to cover medical expenses in the U.S. They're in the lack of preventive care in the U.S. which results in expensive treatment of illnesses in their later stages.
Economic considerations are very important as are issues such as the general state of a country's health, the anxiety over health care and the level of satisfaction experienced by those in the health care industry. The economics certainly indicate that the Canadian approach should be observed and considered as a model for the U.S. The U.S. spends about $1000 per year per person more than does Canada. We have nothing to lose by giving it an objective analysis, seeking out both sides of the argument. It's worth a look.
Quoting a letter to the editor from Ove Madsen in the Montana Senior Voice:
"I have read all about the health care plans in the paper. I have done a little work to find out what the general public Canadians think about their health plan. Everytime I see a car with Canadian license plates, I go up and talk to them. They are all nice to talk with, and I ask them how they like their health care plan. So far, 99% of the Canadians I've talked to like their system. They say it is such a peace of mind and the service at the doctor's office and hospitals is really quite good. If the ordinary run of the people like it, that's all we need to know."
According the Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Canadians are the most satisfied with their health care.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
USPS costs less than FedEx/UPS on a per package basis including losses. And Medicare spending grew at a slower rate than private healthcare spending, despite the pool of Medicare users growing faster than the pool of private users
This is a stupid analogy anyway, there's no private equivalent to a lot of govt functions, and govt doesn't operate to generate a profit. IMO healthcare should not be a for profit endeavor, at least overall (theres still a place for elective procedures and high end insurance/care if one chooses to pay it).
well its important to define single payer
in the case of the post office, the post office does not have a monopoly on shipping
and in medicare the government simply administers payments, it doesnt actually run any medical facilities
under typical single payer, the government would own and run the hospitals and it would have a monopoly, so imagine what shipping would be like if the post office had a monopoly on shipping
and the VA is an example of where the government own, runs and pays for all the healthcare, so its an accurate symbol of typical single payer
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
under typical single payer the government is hiring the doctors and owns the facilities
maybe you can choose your own doctor within the system, you cant literally choose your own doctor
and that's my point, i think a government health care program is fine just like a post office is fine, but giving the government a monopoly is bad
Killigraphy
Banned
Statistics have shown that countries with single payer health (Norway, Japan, Sweden ,Kuwait, UK, Canada, Slovenia, Italy, Finland, Spain, Iceland and Portugal), flourish. If anyone tells you different, they simply haven't done the research.
No, under single payer(at least in Canada) the hospitals and doctors are all private. you pick what doctor you want and go from there.
the Government doesn't do that.
All it means is that all those doctors and hospitals just send one bill to the same person every time. It actually saves them money and cuts down on administration.
Its not. Again, 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border.
half those countries ain't flourishing
Now, don't get me wrong. I like the idea of universal health care, but to couple that with economic outlook :ohsnap:
David_TheMan
Banned
I argue against the very concept of forced taxation and everything it is spent on. I would like to see all these force subsidized programs immediately ended, but if I have to settle for getting rid of them or arguing for them to be shut down 1 by 1, I 'll do that.
To that I'm against public education, public road spending, definitely against military spending, against research all things funded by force of taxation I'm against. There is adequate market for these goods to be provided privately.
Saying its not true doesn't equate with it being not true.
Singapore's semi privatized system has life expectancy on level with single payer Japan the the highest life expectancy in the world. So the argument that UH keeps its citizens healthier is a empty claim.
UH is definitely expensive, this is why most western nations that implement it have to ration care and are seeking to privatize portions of care to deal with costs or seeking other remedies to cure skyrocketing costs.
We have seen this in Canada, UK, Germany, France, Hong Kong, and Japan.
some links I can give you more if you like.
Japan
Abenomics and the Generic Threat | GLOBIS Insights - Read
Canada
'Free' Health Care in Canada Costs More Than It's Worth
UK
NHS 'facing funding gap of up to £2bn' in England - BBC News
US current system is horribly inefficent and needs to be scrapped. THat said I'm not arguing for the current system, so to dismiss it isn't a recommendation or a need for UH
Yes, there is a excellent breakdown of the reduction in quality of service when seperated from profit/loss feedback from customer in soviet union and its economic collapse.
A sort article on the breakdown of the concept.
The Economic Irrationality of the State
If you want a highly detailed version, I can post the mises or rothbard books.
No hospitals don't exist so more people use them, they exist so that sick or ill can get treatment.
UHC hasn't shown that its better economically, I've shown that most of the darling UHC nations are experiencing cost overruns and are seeking to lower costs.
Better for the economy, how can a service that spends more than the money it pulls in be good economically?
For employers, I"m sure they love not having to provide benefits to their workers, gives the big guys a competitive advantage.
For the country and everyone, clearly it doesn't, as evidence that there are people in every country who aren't neccessarily supportive or wanting of single payer or socialized medicine.